Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese

The Bar Council recently issued a statement that Sedition Act is not an answer to maintain peace and harmony. Instead, according to the Bar Council, the Sedition Act should be repealed and replaced by an NUCC harmony proposed law namely Racial and Religious Hate Crime bill. This NUCC harmony law was drafted by the Bar and according to Christopher Leong, the president of the bar council is a solution to achieve peace and harmony. It was reported that:
“He (Christopher) also proposed a new national, harmony legislation that would serve to promote and achieve genuine peace and harmony.”
But this is where the bar is misconceived and disconnected from the rest of Malaysia. The NUCC law legalizes seditious statements so long as there is no physical threat. For example section 4 states:
“Whoever engages in conduct that is intended to threaten, incite, or incite others to threaten, physical harm towards another person or …property …on the basis of race is guilty of an offence…”.

Similar position under section 5 for religious belief.
What this means is that under the NUCC laws you can make as much bigoted and racists statements that you want and it will be perfectly legal as long as there is no threat of violence. You can insult and demean Islam, Allah, Prophet Muhammad SAW, Hindu religious gods, Chinese customs and say as much racists statements as you like, it will be perfectly legitimate to utter it as long as there is no threat of physical harm.

This is the way forward proposed by the Bar Council. Instead of reducing seditious statements, the Bar wants to allow more proliferation of seditious, bigoted and religious statements and to the Bar Council this will actually achieve genuine peace and harmony. Do you think this will achieve peace and harmony?

As is, its strongest supporters of abolition of Sedition Act, Lim Guan Eng, DAP, many non malays and the Christians (as in the Christians Federation of Malaysia) have made huge hue and cry and lodge various police reports over statements by ISMA and Ibrahim Ali over statements of “Pendatang” and Bible. These statements by ISMA and Ibrahim Ali would not even be an offence under the NUCC law (as admitted by the previous bar council president lim Chee wee) but all of them are hugely upset and agitated with these statements calling for enforcement of Sedition Act.

The Bar has lost it and is really disconnected with the reality in Malaysia thinking a proliferation and legalization of bigoted and racists statements would achieve genuine peace and harmony. Paraphasing the words of Christopher Leong, anyone who believes the NUCC Act is the key to peace and harmony is “delusional”. “‎It is folly to think that the [NUCC law] is our answer to maintaining and promoting peace and harmony. There is nothing in the [NUCC harmony] law that supports any such notion.

Any right minded Malaysian, in paraphrasing Christopher, would see the [NUCC law] would only perpetuate disharmony, and that ‎by proposing the [NUCC law], the government was caving into pressure by “irresponsible quarters”. “There are quarters in Malaysia who have created an environment of disharmony — misinterpreting and abusing the Federal Constitution, distorting our history, exploiting insecurities” and challenging our peaceful and traditional values. These irresponsible quarters do not want those who scare monger with racists and religious statements to “be brought to account by the law.” And this is downright wrong.

And this irresponsible quarter is the Bar Council. The way forward must not and cannot be an increase and legalization of bigoted and racists statements with the purpose of dividing us. We want all these divisive racists and bigoted statements to cease. By legalising it, the Bar Council is highly irresponsible and part of the mess of confusion we have now in Malaysia. The Bar needs to be reformed.

This editorial piece is typical on how tmi and the left media report issues on Islam which they don’t like.

Their modus of writing is simple. First (1) frame an Islamic issue that they don’t like according to how they want it to be (as ridiculous as possible) and not how it is; secondly (2) attribute it as an entire malay Muslim issue and then thirdly (3) belittle and ridicule it and where possible attribute it to partisan politics. Walla!. You get a deep racist siege reaction from the non Malays and gullible Malays. Our issues are suddenly invalid.

Allow me to elaborate in the context of liberalism issue. As you know the religious authorities and many Muslims have issues against Muslims promoting the liberalism philosophy. But those liberals and left purposely frame it differently. Zaid framed us as opposing to “open progressive views”. Tony Pua framed us as opposing to “free sex”. Ridiculous kan? But not to the insidious left media. They then spun Zaid’s views to say that all those Muslims who oppose have the same mindset (step 2) and this is an absurd ridiculous and unreasonable. (Step 3). Then what ensued was a typical of “apalah bodoh sangat Muslim ni” or how unreasonable Muslims have become. This then created a siege mindset for the non Muslims and certain Muslims. And then we plunged into deeper distrust without resolving anything.

Similarly with this article. Tmi and the left media for example reported extensively prior to this the objection of the batu cave picture on the water bottle. It gave an impression that it’s a big Muslim issue. This is how malay Mail (TMI cohort) broke the news:

“Muslim group raises stink over picture of Hindu god near ‘halal’ logo on bottle labels”

Please note the words “Muslim” “stink” and “Hindu god”. As a result some of my non Muslims friends then think we have become more extreme and since we didn’t condemn we all approve it.

Is that the case? So I did a check on utusan and berita harian on this at about the same period ie on 4, 5 and 6 nov. I stand corrected but found this issue was not even reported pun. Why? Because I think this is such a small issue to Muslims that it’s not newsworthy. But the left media made such a big fuss with continuous coverage to deepen the racist and bigot siege mindset.

So this issue blew up because they pushed it. A number of Muslims may not even be aware of this or if they know it’s not a big issue. But no, TMI wasn’t concern and conceitedly went further by taking it as a basis to say that we Muslims have gone the Taliban way. Aik? We didn’t do anything pun. They kept up the frenzy and then accuse us of going the Taliban way. Utterly reprehensible this TMI,

Then to cap it off they portray it as an umno issue where we know utusan tak cover pun. They do this to effect a misplaced hatred so that people see this issue with hate. It’s a similar method on Allah issue. They never recognise polls after polls showing that overwhelming Muslims are opposed to it. Instead they misrepresented it as an UMNO issue. In this article, despite doing nothing, we are blamed for becoming Taliban at the instigation of umno. Huh? Tak masuk akal. But many Malaysians who are so call intelligent people believe in this nonsense.

Don’t be conned by them. Next time you see the editors of the left media like Jahabar, tell them we’re not stupid and gullible. Ask them to be responsible and truthful.

I was reading many responses to the criticism against the bar for its double standard position on retired judges appearing in courts.

The main argument of those defending the bar’s silence is that the law permits anyone to appoint a retired judge to be a counsel.

This argument is a false argument in rebutting the criticism. The bar and the lawyers have known the law for a long time. Dah lama dah. It’s because of the law lah, that the Bar passed the resolution to amend the Legal Profession Act. If the appearance of retired judges is in the law, dah lama dah retired judges cannot appear in court.

If the law permits so why is the bar taking a stand against it? This is because according to the bar itself, it is a fundamental breach of justice and our legal system. In the words of the bar:

“retired Judges of the superior court having failed to honour tradition and convention by appearing as counsel, …must now be prohibited or restricted by law from continuing with such unacceptable conduct.”

It is so unacceptable that the bar members passed a resolution to not only prohibit a retired judge from appearing as counsel in court by law but

1) to propose amendments to the Legal Profession Act “for Urgent presentation to Parliament” and

2) to take … steps to educate the public on the reasons for the proposed law.

The criticism of the bar was never about the law. It’s about the bar’s hypocritical stand on upholding justice and biasness. This stand against retired judges was unanimously condemned by the bar as an affront to justice and Anwar’s widely followed case should be a good example of taking a stand to educate the public.

So what did they do? N-O-T-H-I-N-G. And this is the problem.

The bar has always claimed to have taken a stand in the interest of justice despite the law. Sedition Act is a case in point. Even though the law says it’s wrong, they continuously took various loud public stands against it since according to them justice prevails. In this case it’s the same. The law is against the principle of justice that the bar loudly proclaims. But what did they do? Absolutely nothing prior to the criticism.

So, you see it has no connection at all about the law. The bar knew at all times that the law permits but it’s against justice. Nothing had stopped them before from making a stand in a similar scenario.

So the bar is not stupid. It’s just selective. We need to reform the bar.

Actually I really don’t know who the bar council is representing? Which segment of society do they represent? Which segment of lawyers do they speak for?

Yesterday they passed a resolution to abolish the sedition act and replace it with a new racial and religious hate crime law in line with that proposed by NUCC. This effectively legalize all racial and religious incitement including incitement like “non Malays are pendatang”, “Islam is a @&$*# religion”, “Malays are lazy and stupid” and many other derogatory racial utterances so long as there’s no threat to physical harm. This is because as per my previous post, the NUCC’s draft only makes illegal if there is a threat of physical harm.

Ambiga, suaram, lim guan eng, lim kit Siang, Khalid Samad, marina Mahathir, Mujahid, DAPs, PRs, the liberals and the non Malays in general have all the while almost on a daily basis berate how racist and bigoted we have become. They claim our country has become worse than ever, and demand action be taken against those spewing racists statement.

Isma, perkasa, muhyiddin, our security forces, many/most in UMNO and the Malays in general have also been berating on a daily basis the bigoted insult to Islam, Sultans, Religious authorities, long held traditional practices and Malay privileges. They too claim our country has become worse than ever, and demand action be taken against those propagating hatred.

So for example, the first group, the left, will demand action be taken against the second group, the right, for inciting “non Malays are pendatang”. The right too will demand action against the left for example, for inciting, “derhaka” against the Sultan.

So if almost everybody wants action be taken against incitement, who then does the Bar Council represent when they resolve in legalising racial and bigotted incitement bar physical threat? Does the 700 to 900 people represent the whole bar of around 15000?

What is perplexing is that many in the Bar Council including their president and past presidents condemn racists and religious incitement yet want to legalize such incitement. Huh? How can the rakyat not see how hypocritical they are? How can the rakyat not see that they have ulterior sinister motive masking the hypocrital stand as part of human rights? Unless of course they don’t know what they do which imply they are “dumb”. I don’t believe so as I know some of them as very articulate and smart. But I leave all of you to decide. Whichever case you decide, it’s damning on the Bar for saying one thing and doing the opposite.

This is why I said before that the Bar Council has been one of the major player in the mess, dissatisfaction and disillusionment that we read daily. They have been taking selective stands on issues and fail to defend the constitutional compromise we have all agreed to uphold. They misrepresent us. In this case they even misled us with their hypocritical stand.

I’m fairly convinced now that those who support the abolishment of the Sedition Act and replacing it with a new law called Racial and Religious Hate Crime Bill (“RRHBC”) by NUCC, not only have not read the two laws, but really don’t know what they want.

Why is this?

Because all the things that they condemn as racists and extremists are not only allowed under the new Bill, in fact it encourages one to incite a worse racial and religious hatred statement than currently is.

Meaning?

You see when Abdullah Zaik of Isma was reported to say about the Chinese “Who gave them citizenship and wealth until the results of their trespassing are protected until this day?…This was all the doing of the British, who were in cahoots with the Chinese to oppress and bully the Malays,”, many of the left were so angry as this incite racial hatred and even DAP lodged numerous police reports against it. Guan Eng then even called for the application of our Sedition Act.

You know what? Under the proposed racial and religious hate crime bill they are not only permitted to say this, they can say worse such as insulting the Chinese as a race. Why is that? Because under the new RRHBC, it is only a crime if there is a threat of physical harm. Meaning you can incite as much as you want so long there’s no incitement of physical harm, it’s not an offence.

Really? Section 4 of RRHBC states : “Whoever engages in conduct that is intended to threaten, incite, or incite others to threaten, physical harm towards another person or …property …on the basis of race is guilty of an offence…”. (See full law below)

So Guan Eng and the left including Ambiga and Negaraku cannot complain about Abdullah Zaik’s statement. In fact no one in this country should ever complain if one derogatorily calls the Chinese pendatang.

This really doesn’t make sense. That’s why I think those who support the abolishment of the Sedition Act and be replaced with RRHBC don’t know what they want but yet think they have a high moral ground. This is a most foolish and idiotic action.

By the same token please also note that under the proposed section 5 of RRHCB on incitement of religious hatred, you can derogatorily say anything about one’s religion, as much as you like, and still not committing an offence if there is no threat of physical harm. So one can say anything about Islam such as “Islam is a *#*&^@ religion” (put whatever you like) and its still not criminal incitement.

This is really crazy. It will only create more ill will and racial and religious hatred. Don’t know what NUCC is thinking? How can this have any semblance of achieving unity. And worse, the Bar Council appears to be supporting this anarchist state of affair. The Bar should stand against this. That’s why I said in my past posting the Bar Council is a major part of this mess we have, in championing unbridle rights.

Let’s go back to the constitutional compromise we have. The give and take our forefathers had. The value of “jaga hati orang lain” or emphatized with each other. We know we are different so we don’t purposely offend. We don’t unnecessarily provoke as it will invite a further provocative reaction. Stand back and think rationally.

He then said : “Saya harap raja dan istana faham serta tidak termakan fitnah Umno yang mengatakan PKR dan DAP kurang ajar…” knowing full well that it was HRH and not umno which considers the PKR and DAP biadap in HRH’s letter (see my previous post).

How can this not be a statement with intent to bring “into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler”? How can all these statements show any semblance of “kesetiaan kepada Raja”? How can this statement be in line with our principles of “kesopanan dan kesusilaan”?

This Aziz Bari is pits. We were always taught not to cross the line of derhaka be it our parents or our sovereign. Be respectful. Disagree with manners if you must. No one for example teaches their children to menderhaka simply because there is no law to it. Aziz Bari just did that. He is a sick person.

And you know what’s worse, he lied. There is a law against doing this. Under the Sedition act, section 4 states it is seditious to utter seditious words. Section 3 states that a statement is seditious if it brings “into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler”.

His call for promoting derhaka clearly is a crime. Not only has Aziz committed a crime, but under Section 4, FMT and TMI have also committed a crime in publishing the seditious article.

There is no defence of academic opinion. A lie is not an academic opinion. Assuming he lies again saying he is unaware of the sedition act, he is a constitution law lecturer for goodness sake. For this lie he does not deserve to be call any semblance of professorship.

It is for this reason I say we need the Sedition Act. We cannot allow people who lie to create hatred contempt and disaffection against our rulers get away scot free.

Yesterday TMI ran a few articles gunning down the much respected ex CJ Tun Hamid. Their usual modus operandi is to take a speech out of context and cast it as racists or bigots. Then get a few lapdogs to reaffirm and in yesterday’s case they got LGE to come up with his usual selective racists charge. Consequent to this they expect a set of reactions generally from liberals to condemn and reaffirm the racists tag line.

So to those who read TMI it will get a reaffirmation of a siege mindset as planned by TMI.

Now this racists branding of TMI can only happen if one raises Islamic or Muslims issues. One can be extremists on non Muslims views and would not be regarded as racists. Thus Islamic religious authorities asking Muslims to unite on various issues say Allah issue will always be portrayed as racists to TMI but if another religious or racial denomination asking to unite eg Christians uniting for the same Allah’s issue will never be racists or bigots. Whatever is done by non Muslims will not be racists by TMI. Thus you see DAP playing the racial theme and card of uniting the Chinese in the previous GE can never be wrong.

The next step that TMI does is to get a reaffirmation of the extreme view from unknown unrecognized Muslims to misrepresent the views of all Muslims here. So to readers of TMI these strange unknown views are misleadingly portrayed to reflect the concern of most Muslims.

This is the standard modus operandi of TMI that they have used over the years. The consequent of this is not only the views of mainstream muslims being dismissed and cast aside, it created much animosity to such view. There is no empathy at all. Thus there is no possibility of compromise. This is evident in the Allah issue. It’s always portrayed as an umno issue though time and time again survey after survey reveals overwhelming Muslims are against it.

Similarly with Tun Hamid. Those who condemn don’t even know what he’s saying except to conclude certain out of context remarks are racists.

When he was first elected, we had so much hope. Hope that many things will change. Hope he makes significant changes to American politics and governance. Hope he makes momentous stands on principles that would etch him in the annals of history among the great US Presidents.

But hope with Obama remains just “hope”. Many in the US think he has not brought much change. His approval rating has been dipping and dipping probably better than just his predecessor George Bush.

But for the world many still clings to Obama as a man that will bring change. He did change the way how Americans deal with its powers in the world. It did bring much optimism until recently when reality hits the ground. He is actually no different from his predecessor.

That decisive moment was when he abused an Iftar session to humiliate Muslim leaders in the US. When it was an event to foster greater goodwill and relationship among the Muslims and non Muslims, he politicized the event to justify Israel’s position of indiscriminate killing and land grab of Palestinian land. Where Muslim leaders were to celebrate a great partnership with the US Government, Obama took the occasion to tell them to recognize the Israeli justification of their inhumane policy. The Israeli ambassador gleefully tweeted to the world how Israel was able to defend it’s position among the Muslims leaders.

What Obama did was unforgivable. He, in the words of Malcolm X, was trying to create hatred “on the people who are being oppressed and love the people who are doing the oppressing”. It’s like preaching to the black leaders movement then in the like of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King that it was the black’s fault that resulted in their discrimination and klu klux klan was justified in killing and torturing the blacks. Obama has betrayed this very principle of the black movement which has brought his presidency.

I’m having a heated discussion elsewhere and I really think we have some really sick Malaysians among us. Bung Mokhtar is not even close to their level and is put to shame by these Malaysians. They are scums to me.
In the Palestinian case, the Israelis reacted way unconscionably against any international norms and laws in indiscriminately killing 100 Palestinians including the children when they retaliated against the 3 Jewish teenagers who were killed earlier. The Israelis who are the occupying force and maintain an unshackled control over the Palestinians could and should have used due process to bring to justice the perpetrators. But instead they chose summary execution by killing others who are innocent.

Now these Malaysians, instead of condemning the aggressor here, chose to condemn the Palestinians instead. Some even went to suggest that the Palestinians should leave their land and country so that the Jews/Israelis can be rewarded with further lands. How in the world do we have these Malaysians?

Australia has a population of around 10% with Asian origins. But they have only 10 parliamentarians who have Asian origins ie about 1.7%. In the private sector, Asians hold only only 1.9% of executive managers and 4.2% of directors had Asian origins. Out of top 10 richest person, there doesn’t appear to be any Asians. Can’t imagine how many Asians are there in public service and hold KSU like positions there.

The non Malay minorities in Malaysia have much more than that. For 2013 election the minorities hold 59 out of 133 parliamentary seats. We see so many of them holding executive positions in the private sectors and directors positions in listed companies. In all likelihood they hold an overwhelming majority of such positions. Then we have a number of KSUs from the minority group. And out of the top ten richest persons in Malaysia, 8 or 9 of them are from the minority group.

Yet the minority argue they have greener pasture in Australia. Yet they argue they have more democratic voice in Australia. Yet they argue they’re second class citizens.

I must say the Australian caucasians are bloody lucky. If they were here in Malaysia, they would have been called racists. There would probably be a massive hate campaign against them for not giving the Asians equal opportunity. They would be called to the United Nations human rights commission to explain this discrimination. There would also be a “Negaraku like movement to allow equal opportunity to the Asians.

Or could it be that the minorities here are under a false siege mindset perpetuated by the DAP racist propaganda?

Archives

Blogs I Follow

Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese

Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese

Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese

Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese

Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese